On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 16:27 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 15:55 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > I found it independently actually .. It looks like there's at least two > > > > problems. This jtag driver has a status register which flags when RX is > > > > available, and TX is possible. I'm not sure this status register fits > > > > into the model. The other thing is that we have a ttyJ registered for > > > > this driver, and it would be nice to use that over something like ttyHVC > > > > (I'm not sure if that name is correct, just a guess). > > > > > > Really? Is there a compelling reason to perpetuate this serial device > > > namespace fragmentation nonsense? Your initial patch even had a config > > > option to hijack /dev/ttyS0 because of that. > > > > I'm not sure how to interpret what your saying .. Are you saying we > > should use /dev/hvcX or shouldn't ? > > Long ago I fought for a uniform namespace for serial ports and alike > with dynamically assigned names, just like we do for network interfaces, > for disks, for USB devices, etc. so we'd stop making this hack that > everybody is doing in their own trees which is to hijack /dev/ttyS0, or > perpetuate this proliferation of serial/tty device names. This obviously > didn't happen, for "legacy" reasons (people insisted on having their > 0x2f8 serial port appear as ttyS1 and not ttyS0). > > > the reason I want to use ttyJ is because it was assigned specifically > > for jtags which, to me, makes things a lot less confusing. > > Why did the patch have a config option to use ttyS0 then? I don't know exactly why .. Hyok wrote it and I assume there was a good reason for it, but he's not responding to tell us what it was.. > Anyway, given that the hvc layer is there and would simplify the DCC > driver, I think it is a good idea to leverage it instead of duplicating > and faking tty handling yet again. Maybe extending the generic hvc code > to optionally accept alternate device registration could be considered > instead if you really want a ttyJ device. That's what I was suggesting to Arng .. We should extend hvc to allow other major/minor devices. Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
